Criminal Law — Evidence — Alibi testimony — Failure of defendant to comply with notice provisions of Pa. R. Crim. P. 312 — "Interest of justice" exception — Constitutionality of Rule.
In this case, in which it appeared that defendant's offer of alibi testimony by his wife was excluded because he had not complied with the notice provisions of Pa. R. Crim. P. 312, it was Held that, (a) defendant did not come within the "interest of justice" exception to Rule 312, and (b) his contention that the Rule was unconstitutional was without foundation in the instant case.
Argued June 11, 1970.
OPINION PER CURIAM, August 6, 1970:
Appellant was tried and convicted of aggravated robbery. At his trial, he attempted to offer alibi testimony by his wife. Because he had not complied with the notice provisions of Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 312, his offer was excluded. He does not come within the "interest of justice" exception to Rule 312. Cf. Commonwealth v. Shider, 209 Pa. Super. 133, 224 A.2d 802 (1966). Moreover, his contention that the Rule is unconstitutional is without foundation in the instant case. Commonwealth v. Vecchiolli, 208 Pa. Super. 483, 224 A.2d 96 (1966). Cf. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct. 1893 (1970).
Judgment of sentence affirmed, and the defendant is directed to appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with the sentence, or any part thereof which has not been performed at the time the appeal was made a supersedeas.